INNOVATIO

Asset Building

Through Credit Pilot

Building a sustainable business model
LUZ I. GOMEZ and JOYCE KLEIN

Acknowledgements
The Asset Building through Credit (ABC) Pilot Program was developed through a partnership
between FIELD at the Aspen Institute and the generous support of the Citi Foundation.

Citi Foundation
Pamela P. Flaherty, President & CEO
Brandee McHale, Chief Operating Officer
Daria Sheehan, Senior Program Officer, U.S. Financial Capability & Asset Building

About the Citi Foundation

The Citi Foundation works to promote economic progress in communities around the world
and focuses on initiatives that expand financial inclusion. We collaborate with best-inclass partners to create measurable economic improvements that strengthen low-income
families and communities. Through a More than Philanthropy approach, Citis business
resources and human capital enhance our philanthropic investments and impact. For more
information, visit www.citifoundation.com.

FIELD
Joyce Klein, Director
Luz I. Gomez, Consultant
FIELD at the Aspen Institute works to advance the U.S. microenterprise field through
knowledge and innovation. In its work, FIELD engages deeply with leaders in the
microenterprise industry and provides them and their organizations with tools including
research and data, grants, peer learning, and leadership development programs
that support their efforts to innovate, scale and improve their performance. FIELD also
disseminates knowledge from its work with leaders broadly, through publications, webinars
and presentations.
The work and learning from the ABC project would not have been possible without the
work and openness of the pilot partners. FIELD would like to thank Justine PETERSEN, and
in particular Sheri Flanigan-Vazquez and Kristin Schell, for their partnership in this effort.
Wed also like to acknowledge the generosity and openness of the project teams from
the pilot sites: the Mission Economic Development Agency, Pacific Asian Consortium for
Employment, Latino Economic Development Center, Champlain Valley Office of Economic
Opportunity, Central Vermont Community Action and Local Development Corporation of
East New York.

2014 by FIELD at the Aspen Institute

Published in the United States of America

2014 by the Aspen Institute
All rights reserved

Asset Building

Through Credit Pilot

Building a Sustainable business model

LUZ I. GOMEZ and JOYCE KLEIN

Introduction
Nonprofits and business models
It is difficult to talk about business models without sounding like a candidate for
Wonk of the Year, but street-smart managers know that the concept is at the heart of
successful management. Strong business models bring programmatic and financial
success, while weak ones bring irrelevance and even ruin.
The classic nonprofit has to create a successful mix of three elements: resources,
program design, and impact. All of these components have to be successful and
fully aligned or the model wont work. Any given nonprofit can be said to have a
single business model for the entire entity, or it can have several models for different
programs and services.
Thomas McLaughlin in The Nonprofit Times1
Nonprofits that participate in pilot initiatives often face the challenge of sustaining a
successful program or project once the pilot phase has ended. Recognizing this challenge,
as we neared the end of the Asset Building through Credit (ABC) pilot, FIELD worked with
two of the participating sites the Mission Economic Development Agency (MEDA) and
Pacific Asian Consortium in Employment (PACE) to explore development of a business
model that would enable them to continue to offer a secured credit card teamed with credit
coaching. We focused on the business model because, in an increasingly competitive funding
environment in which funders are asking tough questions
about the value of investments, nonprofits that can
articulate a clear rationale for a line of business can find a
competitive advantage.
The Asset Building through Credit

About the Pilot

The key questions explored in developing the business

model were:
n Is it possible to sustain the delivery of a secured
card teamed with coaching?
n How can the experiences from the pilot inform the
business model for the product?
n What is the business case for delivering the product
in partnership with a financial institution?
This paper summarizes the approach and tools used
in the process of developing the business model, and
the key conclusions from these explorations. Although
the document focuses on the delivery of credit-building
services, the process it outlines can benefit any nonprofit
seeking to take a strategic approach to analyzing
the value of its services and the best investment of
scarce resources.
1

Pilot Program a collaborative

program facilitated by FIELD
at the Aspen Institute with six
microenterprise organizations,
a financial institution and the
Citi Foundation was designed
to assess whether a secured
credit card teamed with financial
coaching could create positive
credit-building behaviors and be
a useful tool for assisting clients
to progress toward their business
development goals. For more on
lessons and outcomes gleaned
from the pilot, visit: www.fieldus.
org/project/securecard.html.

Thomas McLaughlin, Your Nonprofit Business Model: Is is really that healthy?, The Nonprofit Times (December 19, 2011).

P A G E 2 A sse t B u ildi n g t h r o u g h C r e d i t P i l o t

The tools
Put simply, a business model describes the
rationale of how an organization creates,
delivers and captures value. FIELD employed
two tools as it worked with the pilot sites
to study these questions of sustainability:
the Business Model Canvas2 and the Lean
Canvas.3 Both tools allow organizations to
analyze the business model for either a single
line of business, or the overall organization.

Getting Started
1. Review Lean Canvas instructional
videos and materials.
2. Form an internal team.
3. Define the issue to explore.
4. Create milestones to chart
your progress.

The Business Model Canvas helps teams

to jointly describe, think through, or amend
their business models. The original Business
Model Canvas (pictured on the next page) has nine boxes that together represent the
core elements of a business model. Each box has several questions to get users thinking
about that aspect of the model. If a large poster-sized version of the model is used, a team
can write, draw or use Post-It notes in the boxes, and add lines to show how different
elements of the model connect to each other.
The authors of the Business Model Canvas recommend that users start with the
customer box at the right of the canvas with the rationale being that any line of
business should begin with a focus on the customer. The analysis process then works
through the rest of the model. The final area of focus is financial viability. Business
models often are reduced to considerations of costs and revenues. As this framework
illustrates, the financial structure undergirds everything else in the business model it
has to work in order for the rest of the model to succeed. However, the Business Model
Canvas (on the next page) is designed for organizations to focus first on defining deep
customer problems and accompanying solutions, in order to build a strong foundation for
the entire line of business.
The second version of the canvas, and the primary one that FIELD used in working with the
pilot programs, is the Lean Canvas. This version of the canvas (pictured on page 5), amended
by an entrepreneur, makes a clear distinction between the product/service being offered
and the market for that good. FIELD found this distinction to be very helpful in honing in

 lexander Osterwalder and Yves Pigneur, Business Model Generation (self-published, 2009). To access a copy of the canvas
A
see http://businessmodelgeneration.com/canvas/bmc

See http://leanstack.com/, for more information on the Lean Canvas.

A sse t B u ildi n g t h r o u g h C r e d i t P i l o t P A G E 3

P A G E 4 A sse t B u ildi n g t h r o u g h C r e d i t P i l o t
examples
Personal assistance
Dedicated Personal Assistance
Self-Service
Automated Services
Communities
Co-creation

The makers of Business Model Generation and Strategyzer

DesigneD by: Business Model Foundry AG

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA.

sample characteristics
Fixed Costs (salaries, rents, utilities)
Variable costs
Economies of scale
Economies of scope

types
Asset sale
Usage fee
Subscription Fees
Lending/Renting/Leasing
Licensing
Brokerage fees
Advertising

fixeD pricing
List Price
Product feature dependent
Customer segment
dependent
Volume dependent

Dynamic pricing
Negotiation (bargaining)
Yield Management
Real-time-Market

For what value are our customers really willing to pay?

For what do they currently pay?
How are they currently paying?
How would they prefer to pay?
How much does each Revenue Stream contribute to overall revenues?

is your business more

Cost Driven (leanest cost structure, low price value proposition, maximum automation, extensive outsourcing)
Value Driven (focused on value creation, premium value proposition)

Revenue Streams

Cost Structure

channel phases
1. Awareness
How do we raise awareness about our companys products and services?
2. Evaluation
How do we help customers evaluate our organizations Value Proposition?
3. Purchase
How do we allow customers to purchase specific products and services?
4. Delivery
How do we deliver a Value Proposition to customers?
5. After sales
How do we provide post-purchase customer support?

What are the most important costs inherent in our business model?
Which Key Resources are most expensive?
Which Key Activities are most expensive?

types of resources
Physical
Intellectual (brand patents, copyrights, data)
Human
Financial

Through which Channels do our Customer Segments

want to be reached?
How are we reaching them now?
How are our Channels integrated?
Which ones work best?
Which ones are most cost-efficient?
How are we integrating them with customer routines?

characteristics
Newness
Performance
Customization
Getting the Job Done
Design
Brand/Status
Price
Cost Reduction
Risk Reduction
Accessibility
Convenience/Usability

Mass Market
Niche Market
Segmented
Diversified
Multi-sided Platform

strategyzer.com

For whom are we creating value?

Who are our most important customers?

What type of relationship does each of our

Customer Segments expect us to establish
and maintain with them?
Which ones have we established?
How are they integrated with the rest of our
business model?
How costly are they?

Channels

catergories
Production
Problem Solving
Platform/Network

motivations for partnerships

Optimization and economy
Reduction of risk and uncertainty
Acquisition of particular resources and activities

Customer Segments

Customer Relationships

Version:

What value do we deliver to the customer?

Which one of our customers problems are we
helping to solve?
What bundles of products and services are we
offering to each Customer Segment?
Which customer needs are we satisfying?

Date:

Value Propositions

Designed by:

What Key Resources do our Value Propositions require?

Our Distribution Channels? Customer Relationships?
Revenue Streams?

What Key Activities do our Value Propositions require?

Our Distribution Channels?
Customer Relationships?
Revenue streams?

Designed for:

Key Resources

Key Activities

Key Partners

Who are our Key Partners?

Who are our key suppliers?
Which Key Resources are we acquairing from partners?
Which Key Activities do partners perform?

The Business Model Canvas

on the customer and the value

The Lean Canvas
proposition (offer), as well as the
market channels, for a secured credit
card. The Lean Canvas adds a box for
problem definition the problem
the organization is trying to solve
for the customer. The underlying
thinking is that, when a problem is
clearly stated, it is easier to design a
possible solution, which has its own
box in the canvas, as well. The Lean
Canvas also pushes users to identify
a few critical metrics they can use to
quickly evaluate and measure success
(with the hope that the organization
will evaluate and use that information often). The final addition to the Lean Canvas is a box
titled unfair advantage. This portion of the Canvas reminds organizations to define their
competitive advantages early on, and to continue to develop and articulate that advantage.

Exploring critical areas of the business model

The organizations used these resources to examine several important questions
related to the sustainability of offering a secured card combined with credit coaching:
n What value did the program offer to its clients, and to donors? Can that value be
articulated clearly?
n What were the messages and positioning of the product that resonated
most with clients?
n Who are the right clients to target within their market?
n Given the experience with the product during the pilot phase, what could the
organization reasonably project in terms of volume and scale in the future?
n What were the true total costs of and the potential revenue streams from
this product?

Both business model canvases are designed to help organizations build a strong case
for their programming, and to highlight areas that need further work and refinement. In
using these tools to analyze their business models for delivering a secured credit card,
both MEDA and PACE had more than one years worth of data collected as part of the pilot
evaluation, as well as the organizational experience gained during the pilot phase.

A sse t B u ildi n g t h r o u g h C r e d i t P i l o t P A G E 5

The offer/value proposition

Why it matters
A lot of people could benefit from credit, but who really stands out as our strongest
customers? The canvas helps us tell a story. Its fleshed out and comprehensive. Its
simple. Its important to know what and why were doing things in a certain way and for
whom. We can really gain a lot of momentum for this about ways to improve, specify,
and become clearer. Ultimately, its a safer experience for our customers.
Program manager
The first exercise in the Canvas involved pinpointing the ideal client for these credit-building
services. Most microenterprise development organizations (MDO) serve an array of client
segments, and this is true of both PACE and MEDA. One key element of the pilot involved
figuring out how to frame the value of the secured card and credit coaching, assessing which
messages clients responded to, and observing which clients were best suited for the program.
Honing in on the client segment: The ABC
pilot served two broad sets of customers:
Group 1
Group 2
those who were new to credit, and those
who had an existing low score, lacked active
trade lines, and were trying to rebuild their
Looking
No-hit/
to re-build
credit profiles. The exercise in this section
zero score
credit
of the Canvas involved working with the
organizations to articulate their most
Thin file,
No recent,
important customers. These were the early
fewer than
active lines
3 lines
adopters of the secured card, who proved to
be their strongest customers. The challenge
here was to hone in on a customer segment
that was sufficiently specific to allow the
organization to create effective marketing
messages, but not so narrow that it overly limited the market for the product.
Both MEDA and PACE had a strong focus on immigrant entrepreneurs. These clients fit
well with the organizations overall missions and target markets. Immigrant entrepreneurs
also showed strong uptake and performance on the card during the pilot phase. MEDA
defined its ideal client as San Francisco low-to-moderate income (LMI) immigrant
entrepreneurs. PACE defined its idea clients as immigrant business owners for whom
credit has been an obstacle for access to capital or financial products/services.
Defining problems and positioning of the services/product: Once the organizations had
identified their focus on immigrant populations (Latino and Asian immigrants), they were
urged to identify between one and three problems or pain points facing those customers.
The organizations were also encouraged to identify what their early adopters were
already doing to address those problems. In doing so, the hope was that organizations
would frame solutions, and unique and compelling value propositions that addressed the
pain points they had identified. A unique value proposition seeks to distinguish a product
or organization in the marketplace by encapsulating the value it delivers to its customers
P A G E 6 A sse t B u ildi n g t h r o u g h C r e d i t P i l o t

into a single, clear and compelling message that can turn someone into an interested
prospect.4 The problems identified for these immigrant entrepreneurs included: language
and cultural barriers, the absence of clear information regarding credit building, and a lack
of trust in traditional financial institutions.
The experiences of MEDA and PACE in marketing the card during the pilot phase yielded
important insights into the value proposition of the product for their target markets. First,
they saw that their target markets responded more strongly to the product when it was
marketed as part of a process for building credit, rather than as a financial product. In
other words, customers responded to messages about improving their credit, rather than
those that focused on accessing a credit card. Second, the personalized coaching played a
central role in the value proposition. Many of the target market customers were intimidated
by, or had a lack of trust in, financial institutions. The role of a counselor or coach who
could be a source of trusted information and support, and could assess each clients
specific credit history or challenges, was clearly a key part of the value proposition.
Below are the unique value propositions developed by MEDA and PACE:

MEDA
Problem Definition

Lack of information and

trust in U.S. financial
institutions
Language and cultural
barriers to accessing and
understanding credit in
San Francisco.

Solutions

Unique Value Proposition

Generate and distribute

consistent, targeted, and
accessible bilingual and
culturally relevant information
to San Francisco consumers
and partners.

Safe, accessible products

that establish and/or build
credit for San Francisco

 uild trust through

B
methodical, outcomesbased personalized
financial coaching.

LMI Latino immigrant

Offer cost-effective
appropriate credit-building
products

coaching.

Solutions

Unique Value Proposition

entrepreneurs coupled
with personalized financial

PACE
Problem Definition
Language and cultural
barriers and access to
resources.
Lacking credit-building
and credit-management
knowledge.

We offer a comprehensive
Providing credit-building
training together with
credit-building tools (i.e.,
secured credit card),
credit counseling and
relationship building.

credit-building gateway with

personalized and culturally
relevant coaching to reach
financial goals at low or
no cost.

See http://leanstack.com/, for more details on the Lean Canvas.

A sse t B u ildi n g t h r o u g h C r e d i t P i l o t P A G E 7

Making the case to supporters/investors

Laying out a clear and compelling value
MDOs often know how to create
proposition for a product or service is
critical to capturing clientele. However,
and deliver value to their customers
most nonprofits also have a second set
or clients, but its the capturing of
of clients in the donors and investors
value by the institution thats often
who partially or fully subsidize the cost of
the hard piece.
the services they provide. These donors
Elaine Edgcomb, FIELD
and investors are seeking their own
value propositions, which may differ from
those of the direct users of the product.
In fact, the value proposition may vary among donors, depending on their interests and
perspectives.
Thus, another aspect of FIELDs work with MEDA and PACE focused on exploring sources of
revenue to support delivery of the secured card and coaching, and the value propositions
and messages needed to position this line of business to resonate with various funders.
The table below identifies the revenue streams discussed with both organizations and the
types of value that could be of interest to each stream.
Revenue Streams

Types of Value

Client fees

Increases to/establishment of credit scores

Foundations

Increases in credit scores and financial capability

Financial institutions

Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) credit

Expanded client relationships with new unbanked/
underbanked customer base

City governments

Interest in innovative asset-building strategies; bringing

together private/nonprofit actors to address underserved
populations

Local corporate partners

Support for/services to local low-income families

Once each organization identified the value that the product could provide to different
funders, the next step was to work with its development team to translate that value
into specific marketing and fundraising strategies and messages that would connect to
each revenue source. This process included describing the competitive advantage that
the organization offered in this particular space. The Lean Canvas uses the term unfair
advantage, which it defines as the attributes that cannot be copied easily by other
organizations. MEDA articulated this well within its canvas:
MEDA provides a bilingual, streamlined client experience. It has product knowledge
paired with cultural competency. Its partnership with a local financial institution
allows the client multiple payment points, and the personalized coaching and
follow-up is supported with text messaging and online banking supports.

P A G E 8 A sse t B u ildi n g t h r o u g h C r e d i t P i l o t

Start-up and ongoing costs of the pilot

On understanding costs
This process of working through the numbers and cost structure as part of the Lean
Canvas links us to the efficiency that our clients want; our donors want,
and ultimately, that we want.
Program manager
One of the key elements of any business model is the financial model that specifies both
costs and revenues. The evaluation model for the pilot included a process of collecting
detailed cost information for both the start-up phase (the program-development phase
before the secured card was actively marketed and delivered), and on a quarterly basis during
the first year of card delivery. The evaluation process also collected monthly time sheet data.
The start-up costs of the organizations that
Although information about revenues
participated in the pilot varied depending
(in the form of donations, grants, and
on their existing infrastructure (primarily
5
staff) for providing credit-building services. earned income) is usually fairly solid,
In terms of ongoing costs during the first
organizational knowledge about
year of card delivery, the highest expenses costs tends to be weak.6
across all of the five pilot sites were those
related to staff and benefits, because the
coaching model was integral to marketing and delivering the product.The total programdelivery costs incurred by the sites during the pilot year (excluding start-up costs) ranged
from $23,462 to $48,061.
Understanding the full costs of running a program like this requires that an organization
take into account both the direct costs (e.g., staffing hours, marketing) and the indirect costs
(such as overhead). While nonprofits tend to document revenues effectively, many nonprofit
accounting systems do not allow organizations to track and allocate costs effectively at the
program or product level. MEDA and PACE used the financial and time sheet data collected
as part of the pilot evaluation to conduct a cost-accounting exercise (sample shown on
the following page) that analyzed program performance, costs, and revenues during the
course of the pilot. That baseline analysis, along with learnings about staff deployment and
efficiencies gained during the pilot, informed their projected costs going forward.
One indicator of efficiency is the cost per
client served.7 The cost analysis conducted
by MEDA and PACE revealed that the key cost
drivers for the program were staff hours and
overall client volume. Specifically, the fewer
clients served and the greater the number
of hours spent coaching or marketing, the

What was shocking was calculating

the costs It forces you to think
about how much time you are
spending with clients.
Program manager

For more detail, see Asset Building through Credit Pilot: Initial findings, 20-21.

Susan J. Colby and Abigail M. Rubin, Costs are Cool, The Bridgespan Group (December 2003), 2.

 ost per Client measure represents the average cost of serving a client in the fiscal year. It is calculated by dividing the total
C
cost of the program by the number of clients served during the year. See http://microtracker.org/resources/microtracker/pdf/
MT-Glossary.pdf.
A sse t B u ildi n g t h r o u g h C r e d i t P i l o t P A G E 9

higher the cost per client. Those two factors (hours spent marketing and coaching) are also
the levers that a program can pull as it works to reach and serve clients most efficiently.
The cost accounting exercise revealed the following insights for both programs as they
considered the long-term sustainability of the product:
n Identifying and focusing on the most effective marketing channels yields greater
scale and lower costs. Both MEDA and PACE refined their marketing channels to
increase the volume of clients later in the pilot. For example, although PACE used
general marketing strategies at the onset of its program, it found that most of the
clients who were well suited to the card came in via its credit workshops, and through
specific community partners. MEDA found that standardizing all of its marketing
materials to describe its array of asset-building products and services (including the
secured card) helped maintain a steady pipeline of clients for the card. MEDA also
drew compatible clients primarily from its existing business development training.
Understandably, the cost per client varied over the course of the pilot; both MEDA
and PACEs costs per client went down during the last two quarters because of
adjustments to their marketing channels and strategies.
n Tailoring the level of training to the customers needs can also provide efficiencies.
Coaching hours were another main driver of cost during the pilot. FIELDs outcomes
analysis showed that more hours of training did not have a significant effect on credit
scores or credit behavior during the period measured.8 The finding suggested that
organizations might want to consider the number of hours dedicated to education
carefully, as they seek to balance the client outcome from the program with the
organizational need for efficiency and sustainability. Moreover, the study showed that
programs might benefit from allocating their time more efficiently by client segment.
For instance, it appears that clients with low existing scores may need more intensive
guidance and reinforcement regarding use of the card than clients with no scores.
As MEDA and PACE worked through future projections for these services, the coaching
teams thought critically about the level of training time per client that they felt would
produce both strong results and efficiencies. During the course of the pilot, sites had
already begun to experiment with reducing the cost of delivering the card by, for instance,
using classroom sessions to address basic credit concepts before clients met with
counselors one-on-one.9 MEDA planned to achieve greater efficiencies by incorporating
lower-touch client check-ins using text messages to emphasize coaching messages
regarding on-time payments. Its coaching staff also sharpened its message and
standardized the process for delivery, which also had implications for cost savings.
To illustrate the use of this cost-accounting exercise: During the first 12 months of the
pilot, MEDA served 48 clients. The organization averaged 25 hours of staff time per
client during that period. These hours included those spent on marketing, coaching and
training; managing the program; and providing evaluation data. Given MEDAs staffing
cost structure (direct costs) and indirect costs, its costs averaged $874 per approved
client. As MEDA projected forward based on its analysis of past costs and lessons
learned, it anticipated it could dramatically reduce the number of marketing hours by
8

For more detail, see Asset Building through Credit Pilot: Client Gains in Credit Scores and Financial Capability.

For more detail, see Asset Building through Credit Pilot: Initial findings.

P A G E 1 0 A sse t B u ildi n g t h r o u g h C r e d i t P i l o t

focusing on its most successful channels, and decrease its coaching time to 7.5 total
hours per approved client.
Hours per
Approved Client

Projected

Costs & Hours

Hours spent coaching, training, monitoring clients

13

7.5

Hours spent marketing /recruiting

10

0.5

2.5

25

10.5

Hours spent administration/evaluation

Total Hours Spent
Avg. hourly rate (including fringe)
No. of approved clients
Total cost per client
Cost per Client (including overhead
and other operational costs)

$33
48

200

$825

$346

$874

$426

How many people need to be touched to get volume desired?

How long does it take to get them through the process?
Where are the cost challenges?
Where can one decrease costs to be more reasonable?

As MEDA thought through the costs and benefits of its coaching model, seeing the results
from the cost exercise was an aha moment for its team. Given that the organization is
continuing to offer a secured card teamed with coaching, it was particularly concerned
with developing a lean, high-impact model for this line of work that could be sustainable
in the long term. The team thought that it could cut its cost per approved client in half, to
an estimated $426. This analysis seems to bearing fruit, as MEDAs carefully reengineered
credit-building program has grown substantially over the first half of 2014.10

Evaluation/metrics
The final piece of the Canvas involved determining the set mix of metrics that would allow the
organization to track and analyze the programs success in meeting its goals on a relatively
frequent basis. Key metrics can identify areas that need work so they can be addressed
early. In working to identify key metrics, FIELD and the two grantees laid out several
categories of metrics related to the credit-building programming, as well as more general
categories also relevant to the organizations other microenterprise work. These included:
n Simple outputs: These could be the number of applications processed or coaching
sessions provided, for example. Output metrics are useful in helping programs to
see the overall volume of a program. While they are typically the simplest metrics to
10

 or a brief synopsis on MEDAs newly launched credit-building program, see http://www.cfsinnovation.com/content/

F
engaging-clients-right-time-and-place.

A sse t B u ildi n g t h r o u g h C r e d i t P i l o t P A G E 1 1

collect, other categories of metrics (such as those outlined below) are important to
deepen assessment of a program.
n Client outcomes: The ABC pilot involved collection of data on a substantial number of
client outcomes metrics. Although organizations may not want or have the resources
to collect this level of data on an ongoing basis, identifying and collecting data on a
few key outcomes metrics can be highly valuable for internal management purposes,
as well as for fundraising. The most valuable client outcomes for this program would
likely be client credit scores over time, on-time payment on the secured card, and the
rates at which clients graduated to an unsecured credit card or other forms of credit.
n Efficiency/cycle time: Measurements related to cycle time can be a highly useful
means to assess efficiency. Cycle time relates to the time it takes to get clients
through the process of accessing a financial product. In this type of credit-building,
a program would monitor how long it takes to get from first identifying a lead to a
complete application. FIELD also urged programs to think about how strategies/
tactics such as the use of technology might play a role in increasing efficiency and
improving client outcomes. The use of technology, such as MEDAs planned use of text
messaging, could, for example, have an impact on metrics such as on-time payments
(an important metric of client outcomes) or the cost of client follow-up (an important
measure of efficiency).
n Inputs and outputs: Metrics that examine a programs inputs relative to its outputs
are also highly valuable in assessing and refining its business model over time. The
cost per approved client metric evaluated in the cost-accounting exercise above is
one example of this type of metric. Customer satisfaction is another input/output
metric. Organizations can collect data on customer satisfaction by conducting
surveys at key moments in the process (such as after a coaching session, or
six months after the customer has applied for and received the secured card).
Conversion rates (measured from the time a lead is first generated to the time of the
first coaching session is provided, or a card application is submitted) can be used to
assess and monitor the effectiveness of particular marketing strategies.
Identifying the key numbers that show how you are doing in real time.
Efficiency
Cycle Time

Outcomes

No. Apps

Credit
scores

No.
Coaching
Sessions

On-time
payments

Technology

Outputs

Graduation

P A G E 1 2 A sse t B u ildi n g t h r o u g h C r e d i t P i l o t

Input/Output

Lead to
Coaching/
App

Cost per
approved
client

Length of
Session

Customer
satisfaction

Follow-up
Sessions

Conversion
rates

Conclusion: Where do I start?

We encourage organizations to try the process of analyzing the business model for one
of their products or programs, using the tips and tools provided at the beginning of this
publication. The beauty of these business model canvases is they enable an organization
to synthesize the deliberation around a business model in one place. FIELD has seen
programs use these simple tools to explain the rationale for a new or existing business
model to stakeholders (staff and/or board members) and potential investors. Articulating
what can often be complex business models can also enable a nonprofit to effectively
deploy and manage teams, raise funds, and strengthen its work. The analysis process can
reveal strengths in a business model and point out potential weaknesses, both of which
can illuminate the path toward sustainability.

For More Information

For more information on the Asset Building through Credit Pilot Program and
Building a Sustainable Business Model tools visit:
http://fieldus.org/Projects/SecureCard.html
http://leanstack.com
http://businessmodelgeneration.com
PRODUCTION CREDITS:
Designer
Olmsted Associates, Flint, Michigan

A sse t B u ildi n g t h r o u g h C r e d i t P i l o t P A G E 1 3

One Dupont Circle, NW, Suite 700

Washington, DC 20036